Delhi District Court
Federal Express Corporation (Fedex) vs Mr. Mohd. Qadeer on 24 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL
SCJ/RC(WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No.- 369/2013
Unique Case ID : 02401C-061863-2013
Federal Express Corporation (FedEx)
a Body Corporate constituted under the law
prevailing in Delaware, USA
having its office at:
Universal Trade Tower,
7th Floor, Sector-49, Sohna Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon
Through its AR Mr. Vikram Mehta .............Plaintiff
Vs.
Mr. Mohd. Qadeer,
Proprietor of Mehtab Export House,
A-159, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi-110018 .............Defendant
Date of filing of the suit : 03.12.2013
Date of reserving Judgment : 24.11.2014
Date of pronouncement : 24.11.2014
EX- PARTE JUDGMENT
1.Vide this judgment, I shall decide the suit for recovery of Rs. 47,097/- filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. Initially, the present suit was filed under Order XXXVII CPC but later on, upon the submission of Ld. counsel for the plaintiff, the suit was treated as an ordinary suit. Sh. Vikram Mehta, Customer Financial Services Representative/ Principal Officer, was authorized to file, sign and institute the suit vide Special Power of Attorney dated 13.05.2009.
3. The necessary facts for disposal of the present suit as per the plaint, in brief, are that the plaintiff was interalia engaged in the business of international and domestic Airfreight and shipment of cargoes across various Suit No. 369/13 Page..... 1/4 destinations. The defendant was engaged in the business of import and export and is carrying on its business in the name and style of M/s Mehtab Export House.
As per the plaint, the defendant approached the plaintiff company and entered into a service contract with the plaintiff in terms of FedEx Service Contract i.e FSC and pursuant to the said agreement, an account/customer no. 1439-9806-1 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant and the plaintiff agreed to provide Shipper services to various destinations outside India that were serviced by FedEx or its service participants. On the basis of representations made by the defendant and assurance given under the said agreement, the plaintiff started shipping the consignments of the defendant to the destination as desired and directed by the defendant. As per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, after the shipment of the consignment, the plaintiff was to raise an invoice towards such shipment.
It is the case of the plaintiff company that they shipped the consignments of the defendant to the specified destination as desired by them against the Air Waybills dated 05.07.11, 25.07.11, 26.07.11, 04.08.11, 11.08.11 and two Air Waybills dated 27.08.11 and the plaintiff raised invoice dated 14.07.11 against the Air Waybill dated 05.07.11, invoice dated 04.08.11 against the Air Waybill dated 25.07.11 and 26.07.11, invoice dated 11.08.11 against the Air Waybill dated 04.08.11, invoice dated 18.08.11 against the Air Waybill dated 11.08.11 and invoice dated 08.09.11 against two Air Waybills dated 27.08.11 .
The abovesaid invoices were duly served upon the defendant. However, the defendant did not make the payment. Hence, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 06.05.2013 upon the defendant but no payment was made by the defendant.
Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit before this court with a prayer for passing a decree for the recovery of Rs. 47,097/- alongwith pendente- lite and future interest thereon @ 24% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and Suit No. 369/13 Page..... 2/4 against the defendant.
4. The defendant was served with the summons through his brother. However, the defendant did not appear before the court despite service and accordingly, he was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.05.2014.
5. Plaintiff led his ex-parte evidence. In ex-parte evidence, the plaintiff examined only one witness i.e Sh. Vikram Mehta, Authorized Signatory of the plaintiff, as PW-1. This witness filed his evidence by way of affidavit on the lines of the plaint and had placed on record the following documents;
a) copy of Power of Attorney in favour of PW-1 as Ex.PW-1/1 (OSR) (colly);
b) FedEx Service Contract (FSC) alongwith Tariff Chart of the International Air Waybill, Certificate of Importer-Exporter Code, PAN Card as Ex.PW-1/2 (colly);
c) the invoices dated 14.07.11, 04.08.11, 11.08.11, 18.08.11 and 08.09.11 alongwith copy of Air Waybills as Ex. PW-1/3 (colly);
d) legal notice alongwith courier receipt as Ex. PW-1/4 (colly) and;
f) statement of account of the defendant as Ex. PW-1/5.
6. From the documents placed on record it is proved that the defendant entered into an agreement with the plaintiff in terms of FedEx Service Contract and failed to make the payment against the invoice dated 14.07.11, 04.08.11, 11.08.11, 18.08.11 and 08.09.11 as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. Further, there is no reason to dis-believe the unchallenged and uncross-examined testimony of the PW-1.Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and a decree for a sum of Rs. 47,097.00/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest @ 12% per annum from the filing of this suit till the date of passing of order. The plaintiff is further entitled to interest @ 6% per annaum from the date of order Suit No. 369/13 Page..... 3/4 till realization along with costs of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RACHNA TIWARI LAKHANPAL) COURT ON 24.11.2014 SCJ/RC(WEST)/ DELHI Suit No. 369/13 Page..... 4/4